2016 Presidential Horse Race

[dales5050]

Here is what they say about their name:
What does the term “La Raza” mean?

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. The full term coined by Vasconcelos, “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people,” reflects an expansive, inclusive view of the mixture inherent in Hispanics and that Hispanics share a common heritage and destiny with all other people of the world.
FAQs about NCLR

You serious Clark?

Here is what the KKK has to say about their history:

The Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is a White Patriotic Christian organization that bases its roots back to the Ku Klux Klan of the early 20th century. We are a non-violent organization that believes in the preservation of the White race and the United States Constitution as it was originally written and will stand to protect those rights against all foreign invaders. We believe in the right to bear arms against all that threaten our home and family.


As for La Raza - Here is what founder José Angel Gutiérrez had to say:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F5_u62dhkjQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The gringo must go.... Sounds right up the alley of hate speech and pretty damn close to the line of thinking the KKK has. Admittedly La Raza is not a violent group like the KKK but they are a racist and hate group for sure.

Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or a racist.


See how easy it is to call someone a racist

 

[woolybug25]

You serious Clark?

Here is what the KKK has to say about their history:

The Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is a White Patriotic Christian organization that bases its roots back to the Ku Klux Klan of the early 20th century. We are a non-violent organization that believes in the preservation of the White race and the United States Constitution as it was originally written and will stand to protect those rights against all foreign invaders. We believe in the right to bear arms against all that threaten our home and family.


As for La Raza - Here is what founder José Angel Gutiérrez had to say:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F5_u62dhkjQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The gringo must go.... Sounds right up the alley of hate speech and pretty damn close to the line of thinking the KKK has. Admittedly La Raza is not a violent group like the KKK but they are a racist and hate group for sure.

Anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or a racist.


See how easy it is to call someone a racist

One youtube link doesn't prove that the largest Latino organization on the planet is inherently racist. Again... Supreme Court Justices, CEO's and Politicians are all prominent members. You are taking out of context points and trying to twist them into a "hate group". Which by the way, has a definitive definition, one that does not include La Raza.

So yes... I am serious... Clark...


Again... your logic would have Clarence Thomas also recusing himself of any hearings on Affirmative Action because of any membership in african american organizations. Ironically of course, since he views affirmative action poorly.

 

[Wild Bill]

If, as a society, we're going to encourage and embrace diversity we cannot accept and encourage some people to politically organize on the basis of race while condemning others for doing the same. No sane nation would allow this to happen. It will only lead to problems moving forward.

 

[wizards8507]

One youtube link doesn't prove that the largest Latino organization on the planet is inherently racist. Again... Supreme Court Justices, CEO's and Politicians are all prominent members. You are taking out of context points and trying to twist them into a "hate group". Which by the way, has a definitive definition, one that does not include La Raza.

So yes... I am serious... Clark...

The very idea of a "Latino organization" is, itself, racist.

 

[dales5050]

One youtube link doesn't prove that the largest Latino organization on the planet is inherently racist. Again... Supreme Court Justices, CEO's and Politicians are all prominent members. You are taking out of context points and trying to twist them into a "hate group". Which by the way, has a definitive definition, one that does not include La Raza.

So yes... I am serious... Clark...

Of course 1 video does not prove it. But a self described explanation of their name on their website does not prove the origin. That said, I think the origins of La Raza are clearly racist.

Today, I think a large faction of La Raza that is racist as hell. They hate the white man. They hate Americans. Have personally viewed the hatred at multiple La Raza events in San Diego.

Just because the political and leadership structure of La Raza does not come out and say it does not negate the rank and file memberships views.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Dick Cheney looked older than he was. He was inaugurated for the first term just before his 60th birthday. Joe Biden was 66, and he was the 6th oldest VP to ever be inaugurated. Bernie Sanders is older than Joe Biden, eight years after Biden took office. He'd be the oldest VP of all time and it wouldn't be particularly close.

Neither of them were picked for future political wins. You play to win that particular election, and in that sense Sanders makes sense.

But I'd be stunned if she picked him. It'll be someone inside the Clinton circle. Like Sherrod Brown, or a middle eastern despot who gives to the Clinton Foundation...

 

[woolybug25]

Of course 1 video does not prove it. But a self described explanation of their name on their website does not prove the origin. That said, I think the origins of La Raza are clearly racist.

Today, I think a large faction of La Raza that is racist as hell. They hate the white man. They hate Americans. Have personally viewed the hatred at multiple La Raza events in San Diego.

Just because the political and leadership structure of La Raza does not come out and say it does not negate the rank and file memberships views.

That's no different than saying all NAACP members are racist because I saw some of their members rioting in Chicago one time. You are making broad generalizations about a group with millions of members simply because you saw some mean people at a rally by your house and you were able to google a youtube from the 70's that seemed bad.

They are not "clearly racist" as you are looking a sample worth less than 1% of their membership. You are inherently calling all of their members racist. So some of the most prominent latinos in the world all racists? Get outta here with that nonsense.

 

[gkIrish]

That's no different than saying all NAACP members are racist because I saw some of their members rioting in Chicago one time. You are making broad generalizations about a group with millions of members simply because you saw some mean people at a rally by your house and you were able to google a youtube from the 70's that seemed bad.

They are not "clearly racist" as you are looking a sample worth less than 1% of their membership. You are inherently calling all of their members racist. So some of the most prominent latinos in the world all racists? Get outta here with that nonsense.

How is this logic different than the logic used to call all Trump supporters racist? Their "leader" is very likely racist and some Trump supporters have displayed racist behavior but otherwise there is nothing linking his supporters to racism.

Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[wizards8507]

That's no different than saying all NAACP members are racist because I saw some of their members rioting in Chicago one time. You are making broad generalizations about a group with millions of members simply because you saw some mean people at a rally by your house and you were able to google a youtube from the 70's that seemed bad.

They are not "clearly racist" as you are looking a sample worth less than 1% of their membership. You are inherently calling all of their members racist. So some of the most prominent latinos in the world all racists? Get outta here with that nonsense.

The NAACP was formed when there was systematic oppression and mistreatment of black people and was thus legitimate in its founding. La Raza was formed to foster illegal immigration and form a race-based voting bloc for the Democrat Party. Big difference.

 

[GoIrish41]

Neither of them were picked for future political wins. You play to win that particular election, and in that sense Sanders makes sense.

But I'd be stunned if she picked him. It'll be someone inside the Clinton circle. Like Sherrod Brown, or a middle eastern despot who gives to the Clinton Foundation...

Lots of talk about Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.

 

[wizards8507]

Lots of talk about Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.

Hillary Clinton, the least exciting candidate in modern presidential politics, nominating a guy nobody has ever heard of. Brilliant. Nominating Kaine basically telegraphs her strategy as "stay as safe as possible and rely on people hating Trump."

 

[ACamp1900]

If, as a society, we're going to encourage and embrace diversity we cannot accept and encourage some people to politically organize on the basis of race while condemning others for doing the same. No sane nation would allow this to happen. It will only lead to problems moving forward.

This is exactly what I was trying, ineffectively I guess, to touch upon in the PC thread the other day... reactions and 'right or wrong' are too interchangeable now... forget applying this just to the La Raza/Trump supporters discussion... you can apply this to far too many social interactions/reactions... at least for my tastes, we need to get back to just calling spades, spades, and not having the background of the messenger dictate everything one way or the other.

 

[GoIrish41]

How is this logic different than the logic used to call all Trump supporters racist? Their "leader" is very likely racist and some Trump supporters have displayed racist behavior but otherwise there is nothing linking his supporters to racism.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Trump says openly racist things and his supporters cheer in delight. I've made this point before, but indifference to racism isn't very far removed actual racism. If you support an openly racist politician, and you are going to be cast, rightly or wrongly, as a racist.

 

[wizards8507]

Trump says openly racist things and his supporters cheer in delight.

Name one. I'll wait.

 

[gkIrish]

Trump says openly racist things and his supporters cheer in delight. I've made this point before, but indifference to racism isn't very far removed actual racism. If you support an openly racist politician, and you are going to be cast, rightly or wrongly, as a racist.

I guess my point is that members of La Raza openly support racists, including their founder. But as has been pointed out, that doesn't make everyone in La Raza a racist.

And I don't think people attending a rally cheering on their candidate necessarily means they support everything he is saying. Those people would cheer like crazy if he said "I like beans because they make me fart."

 

[Irish#1]

Neither of them were picked for future political wins. You play to win that particular election, and in that sense Sanders makes sense.

But I'd be stunned if she picked him. It'll be someone inside the Clinton circle. Like Sherrod Brown, or a middle eastern despot who gives to the Clinton Foundation...

Clinton doesn't want Bernie as VP. He's already caused her some major heartburn. She doesn't want four solid years of it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hillary Clinton, the least exciting candidate in modern presidential politics, nominating a guy nobody has ever heard of. Brilliant. Nominating Kaine basically telegraphs her strategy as "stay as safe as possible and rely on people hating Trump."

Not advocating for him, just pointing out that there is chatter about it. I want her to nominate Bernie! That is the safe move for her if she wants to guarantee that his supporters come out in force.

 

[GoIrish41]

Clinton doesn't want Bernie as VP. He's already caused her some major heartburn. She doesn't want four solid years of it.

George Bush Sr. caused Reagan some major heartburn, too. He called Dutch's economic theory Voodoo economics on the campaign trail, and that term stuck through much of the election cycle. Ultimately he brought Bush on board to attract his supporters so he could win the election. There are multiple examples of candidates choosing someone who they have had disagreements with in the past in order to win elections.

 

[wizards8507]

Not advocating for him, just pointing out that there is chatter about it. I want her to nominate Bernie! That is the safe move for her if she wants to guarantee that his supporters come out in force.

I think Bernie is a bit of a catch-22. In order for him to accept the nomination, Hillary would have to go so far to the left that she'd alienate independents. People like Bernie better than they like Bernie's policies. Bernie's policies coming out of Hillary's mouth won't be nearly as effective.

 

[woolybug25]

The NAACP was formed when there was systematic oppression and mistreatment of black people and was thus legitimate in its founding. La Raza was formed to foster illegal immigration and form a race-based voting bloc for the Democrat Party. Big difference.

haha... So what latino organization could ever possibly be for the advancement and support of the latino community? They certainly weren't founded by the principles you listed, that is simply what you see them as. How is that any difference than saying all Catholic community organizations are formed to protect child molesting priests? After all, you can probably find members that were part of a church with an accused priest.

The Latino community has it's own unique struggles and are allowed to have advocacy groups, just like any other race or religion. Just because they are latinos, doesn't mean that they were formed with ill intent. That's your opinion and you are trying to state it as fact.

 

[wizards8507]

The Latino community has it's own unique struggles and are allowed to have advocacy groups, just like any other race or religion. Just because they are latinos, doesn't mean that they were formed with ill intent. That's your opinion and you are trying to state it as fact.

Of course they're allowed to. I'm not suggesting the DOJ should come in and shut them down. But I think it's ignorant to assume that a judge with ties to a pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization can fairly adjudicate a case against a presidential candidate who's running on a platform of ending illegal immigration.

 

[GoIrish41]

I guess my point is that members of La Raza openly support racists, including their founder. But as has been pointed out, that doesn't make everyone in La Raza a racist.

And I don't think people attending a rally cheering on their candidate necessarily means they support everything he is saying. Those people would cheer like crazy if he said "I like beans because they make me fart."

But would they increase their bean consumption so that they could fart more, thereby offending everyone else? That's what Trump's racist comments have unleashed in this country -- he has given licence to ignorance and bigotry by people who were probably predisposed to it. The example linked was from the 70s and more than likely completely out of context. I'm neither defending or condemning the contents of that video (actually, I'm at work and haven't watched it yet) but it is almost inconsequential to events that are happening 40+ years later. Trump is right now. Those who see his behavior and hear his racist rhetoric and support him anyway? ... Indifference to racism (and especially support for the blowhard who is preaching the gospel of hate) IS racism in my view.

 

[woolybug25]

Of course they're allowed to. I'm not suggesting the DOJ should come in and shut them down. But I think it's ignorant to assume that a judge with ties to a pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization can fairly adjudicate a case against a presidential candidate who's running on a platform of ending illegal immigration.

So is Sotomayor (former member) unfit to rule over any immigration rulings in the Supreme Court? Is Thomas unfit to rule over any Affirmative Action rulings? Is Kagan unfit for any women rights rulings?

It's preposterous to say that simple membership to a community organization makes you unfit to do your job. I've given multiple examples.

Finally, they are not running on a platform of "illegal immigration", most of their work isn't even political lobbying. They spend much more time being social advocates in the same manner as Rotory clubs or Kiwanis. They recruit prominent latinos to be part of the business and social community. Your view of "supporting illegal immigration" is coming from your myopic view that anyone that supports immigration reform from the left side of the aisle is a supporter of illegal immigration. Wanting to change how immigrants get citizenship isn't the same thing as supported mexicans that break the law.

 

[gkIrish]

But would they increase their bean consumption so that they could fart more, thereby offending everyone else? That's what Trump's racist comments have unleashed in this country -- he has given licence to ignorance and bigotry by people who were probably predisposed to it. The example linked was from the 70s and more than likely completely out of context. I'm neither defending or condemning the contents of that video (actually, I'm at work and haven't watched it yet) but it is almost inconsequential to events that are happening 40+ years later. Trump is right now. Those who see his behavior and hear his racist rhetoric and support him anyway? ... Indifference to racism (and especially support for the blowhard who is preaching the gospel of hate) IS racism in my view.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just see too much crossover the logic of arguments made by people to support/bash a candidate.

Unrelated comment not directed at anyone here (mostly people on my FB wall) but it relates to my crossover logic comment: People spend countless hours all year long talking about how stupid the GOP is, how they are all idiots and bigots and racists, etc. etc.

The second some members of the GOP come out against Trump all of a sudden it's "Even your own party thinks he is an idiot."

Well, which is it...are they all idiots and their opinion doesn't matter? Or are they not idiots and their opinion about Trump should matter?

 

[GoIrish41]

I think Bernie is a bit of a catch-22. In order for him to accept the nomination, Hillary would have to go so far to the left that she'd alienate independents. People like Bernie better than they like Bernie's policies. Bernie's policies coming out of Hillary's mouth won't be nearly as effective.

A huge amount of Bernie's support was from independents. In fact, he did much better with them than Hillary did. Hillary adopting some positions to her left would help her with independents. That is what Bernie was running on to attract their support in the first place. It may be true that Bernie's messages from Hillary's mouth would be less effective. All the more reason to have him on the ticket to present them himself.

 

[connor_in]

I guess my point is that members of La Raza openly support racists, including their founder. But as has been pointed out, that doesn't make everyone in La Raza a racist.

And I don't think people attending a rally cheering on their candidate necessarily means they support everything he is saying. Those people would cheer like crazy if he said "I like beans because they make me fart."

Wasn't that the slogan for Al Gore?

 

[wizards8507]

A huge amount of Bernie's support was from independents. In fact, he did much better with them than Hillary did. Hillary adopting some positions to her left would help her with independents. That is what Bernie was running on to attract their support in the first place. It may be true that Bernie's messages from Hillary's mouth would be less effective. All the more reason to have him on the ticket to present them himself.

They didn't support him for his policies, they supported him for him.

 

[connor_in]

A huge amount of Bernie's support was from independents. In fact, he did much better with them than Hillary did. Hillary adopting some positions to her left would help her with independents. That is what Bernie was running on to attract their support in the first place. It may be true that Bernie's messages from Hillary's mouth would be less effective. All the more reason to have him on the ticket to present them himself.

1) The ONLY reason I think Bernie would ally with HRC as her VP candidate is to stop Trump.
2) That said, would he definitely do it? My guess is only with MAJOR concessions to his views.
3) Would Sanders' followers really turn out for HRC on election day? You and other D's on here have consistently said that Bernie supporters will fall in line behind HRC like there is absolutely no doubt that they will. This is even after seeing the still large amounts of R's that refuse to or are at least non-committal towards Trump. Just reading and listening to the news (from across the media spectrum political leaning wise), there seems to be a visceral dislike of most things HRC related coming from Bernie people. Basically, it comes down to would they really go to her w/out Bernie as VP? Even if given VP, would they feel any betrayal towards him for going HRC? Would they be anywhere near as fervent for her as they are for him and thus turn out in the numbers she would need? Bernie is running as an outsider and is getting a lot of support that thinks that the system and the status quo are the problem. That is a lot of support that Trump gets too and if HRC is anything, she is pro-establishment system/pro-status quo. I am not saying Trump gets any kind of significant support rolling over to him, but he could get some of it (those that are anti-system and not pro-socialism). That mixed with some not showing for HRC as they view her type as the problem.

Just my own thoughts on the matter.


Bill 'n Opus 2016

 

[GATTACA!]

Also, La Raza is the largest Latin-American Advocacy group on the planet. They have members in every major company in the country. It's like being a member of an african american advocacy group. Even Sonia Sotomayor was a former member. Should she not be able to be part of race cases in the Supreme Court? Should Clarence Thomas not be able to be part of rulings for Affirmative Action because of his membership to multiple African American organizations?

Shouldn't the criteria be weather or not they have a history of unbiased rulings

Edit: Woa sorry for the old bump, didn't realize how far behind I was.

 

[connor_in]

So is Sotomayor (former member) unfit to rule over any immigration rulings in the Supreme Court? Is Thomas unfit to rule over any Affirmative Action rulings? Is Kagan unfit for any women rights rulings?

It's preposterous to say that simple membership to a community organization makes you unfit to do your job. I've given multiple examples.

Finally, they are not running on a platform of "illegal immigration", most of their work isn't even political lobbying. They spend much more time being social advocates in the same manner as Rotory clubs or Kiwanis. They recruit prominent latinos to be part of the business and social community. Your view of "supporting illegal immigration" is coming from your myopic view that anyone that supports immigration reform from the left side of the aisle is a supporter of illegal immigration. Wanting to change how immigrants get citizenship isn't the same thing as supported mexicans that break the law.

Sorry, but haven't people tried to get him to recuse himself on these types of matters because of work his wife has done?